The decision came from a Bench of Justice Sudhansdhu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah today, who questioned the necessity of Shankar’s detention.
NEW DELHI: Today (18th July): The Supreme Court ordered the interim release of YouTuber Savukku Shankar, who has been detained as a ‘goonda’ since May by the Chennai Police. The decision came from a Bench of Justice Sudhansdhu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, who questioned the necessity of Shankar’s detention.
READ ALSO: [Savukku Shankar Interview Case] Madras HC Refuses Bail to YouTuber G Felix Gerald
The Bench criticized the Madras High Court for seemingly taking Shankar’s liberty lightly and ordered his interim release while the High Court hears the petition against his preventive detention.
“We also request for expedite hearing considering that it is a preventive detention matter,”
the Court further said.
During the hearing, the Court asked Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the Tamil Nadu government, to justify Shankar’s detention.
The court questioned,
“You say you’ve cited just two cases. The reporter who filed against him isn’t even in that state but in Delhi. He refers to a specific case that also doesn’t sit well with us. How does this warrant detention? Is he a threat to national security?”
Justice Dhulia emphasized that Shankar’s liberty was at stake, noting he had been in preventive detention for over two months.
Justice Amanullah criticized the High Court’s handling of the case, saying, “High Court seems to be taking liberty very carelessly.”
Luthra argued that Shankar had defamed the judiciary and made derogatory comments against judges. Justice Amanullah responded by questioning the relevance of this claim and suggested that Shankar might be suffering from depression.
Today, the Supreme Court emphasized that the issue at hand wasn’t just an ordinary civil dispute but a matter of preventive detention.
READ ALSO: HC Judge: “I Was Warned Not To Hear Jailed YouTuber Savukku Shankar’s Case”
“Somebody’s freedom is at stake. He has been in preventive detention for over two months,” Justice Dhulia remarked.
Justice Amanullah commented, “The High Court appears to be treating liberty quite casually.”
When Luthra argued that Shankar, described as a “unique specimen,” had disparaged the judiciary and criticized judges, Justice Amanullah responded, “Is this even relevant? He appears to be suffering from depression.”
The Court stressed, “Mr. Luthra, when we say justice must not only be done but seen to be done, this mustn’t remain mere rhetoric. We are willing to take responsibility.”
However, the Court also questioned whether Shankar could assure that he would cease his activities if granted relief. “Don’t speak without substantial evidence to back it up,” it cautioned.
The Court then deliberated extensively on whether to hear the case itself or urge the High Court to expedite proceedings. It also considered whether an interim order should be issued for Shankar’s release.
“In cases of preventive detention, courts can delve into technicalities. The crux here is that this individual has been in jail for the last two months without significant action,” Justice Dhulia noted during the hearing.
On the merits, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Shankar’s mother, argued that Shankar was detained solely on the apprehension that he might secure bail in criminal cases and cause disruption.
“This cannot justify invoking preventive detention,” Dave asserted.
Dave also informed the Court about multiple complaints against Shankar.
“In two instances, even the judge did not grant remand. How can I be detained? There is no basis for it. Numerous complaints within six days, some by the government and others,” he added.
The Court stressed the importance of justice being visibly served and discussed whether to hear the matter or request the High Court to take it up urgently. They also considered issuing an interim order for Shankar’s release.
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, representing Shankar’s mother, argued that Shankar was detained based on the apprehension that he would create a nuisance if released on bail, which he claimed was not a valid basis for preventive detention. Dave highlighted multiple complaints against Shankar and mentioned that in some cases, remand was not even granted by the judge.
Luthra opposed transferring the case from the High Court and argued against interim relief, suggesting that the High Court should handle the matter. However, the Supreme Court decided on interim release, emphasizing that their conscience guided this decision. Justice Dhulia added that they could hear the matter on merits and decide immediately.
Seeking the transfer of the case from the High Court, Dave stated that the High Court had refused to hear the matter urgently.
The Supreme Court was also informed that a judge had recused himself from the case after being warned by two unidentified individuals not to hear a habeas corpus petition.
Opposing the transfer of the case from the High Court, Luthra suggested that the Supreme Court should first call for the records from the High Court.
He argued that Shankar had requested the transfer in the interest of justice.
“He implies that the High Court may not provide a fair hearing. If Your Lordships decide to transfer the case, it should be based on this prayer. It’s for Your Lordships to consider whether such a transfer can be allowed,” Luthra stated.
After Luthra objected to any order for Shankar’s release pending his plea before the Supreme Court, the Court noted that interim relief is typically not granted in habeas corpus petitions.
“We can only consider interim relief if we were in Article 32. Is there anything left? What should we do here? This case shouldn’t have led to preventive detention, and now such orders are being passed. I can’t say more. This hearing is consuming more of the Court’s time,” the Court remarked.
At this point, Luthra suggested, “That’s why I proposed that the High Court hear this on Monday.”
However, the Court then expressed its view that it could order interim release based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
“We shouldn’t be hindered in granting interim relief when our conscience calls for it,” Justice Amanullah remarked.
Justice Dhulia added, “And why should we grant interim relief due to this difficulty? We can hear and decide on the merits immediately, can’t we?”
Luthra clarified that his submission was that Shankar could be released on interim basis while his petition was being heard by the High Court.
“Please ensure that an undertaking is sought from him if interim relief is granted,”
he added.
Subsequently, the Court ordered Shankar’s interim release and requested the High Court to conduct an expedited hearing on the petition challenging his preventive detention.
